{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100152",
    "time_of_filling": "2010-04-16 11:00:47",
    "domain_names": [
        "ab-in-den-urlaub.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Tereza Bartošková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Unister GmbH"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "GS-Internetservice"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": "Boris Hoeller (HOELLER RECHTSANWAELTE)",
    "factual_background": "The Complainant, established in 2002,  is - among other websites – running an online travel agency under the domain”ab-in-den-urlaub.de”. The website is known in Germany at least due to substantial efforts of the Complainant in television and online advertisement. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has a registered trademark in Germany, \"aidu.de ab in den urlaub\", registered in April 2005 (see above). In 2004 the Complainant tried to register the trademark “ab-in-den-urlaub” at the German Patent Office (DPMA); the application was refused due to the missing distinctiveness of the term. \r\n\r\nIn 2000, one of the shareholders of the Respondent registered the domain in question. The domain name was first used to direct Internet users to the website at www.fewo4you.com of the Respondent. On this website, the Respondent sold and is still selling primarily vacation homes.com but also hotels and packaged holidays.\r\n\r\nOn the 24th of February 2010, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist-letter to the Respondent, among other things asking for the transfer of the domain name. In a phone call between the inhouse counsel of the Complainant, Jan Witzmann, and Mr. Hans Jürgen Stumpf, one of the two partners of the Respondent, Mr. Stumpf asked the Complainant to offer him a sum of money for purchasing the domain, what Mr. Witzmann refused to do. After the phone call, the Respondent stopped the redirection.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Complainant has asked the District Court of Leipzig for an injunctive relief; the court has granted the injunction  with its Decision of 9 February 2010 - 5 O 346\/10 (annex of the complaint). The decision forbids the use of the sign \"ab-in-den-urlaub\" as a part of domain especially in the travel business. The decision refers to a registered trademark of the Complainant (however, it is not clear in the decision which registered trademark is the basis of the decision). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to another case decided by the District Court of Leipzig issued March 24, 2010 which contains, according to the Complainant, a preliminary injunction forbidding the Respondent to use the domain ab-in-den-urlaub.com in Germany. This decision has not been made available to the panel. Furthermore, the Complainant refers to a decision of the District Court issued at March 23, 2010 whose content is unclear and unknown. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant held:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has rights in a registered as well as in a common law trademark.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain is identical to the last part of the registered trademark of the Complainant. The disputed trademark is identical to the common law trademark of the Complainant. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. Respondent is neither an authorized partner of the Complainant nor licensed in any other way to use \"ab in den urlaub\" in a domain name. Redirection of the disputed domain name to a different website unrelated to the Complainant but selling apartments does not constitute a legitimate “interest” in the domain name. An offer to sell the domain is proving that the domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nThe Respondent held:\r\n\r\nThe phrase 'ab in den urlaub' has no other meaning then \"to go on leave\", \"taking a holiday\" etc.\r\nThe Complainant has failed to show the existance of trademark rights, even in a wider sense, there is no \"protected mark\" that could have been offended.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, not shown the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i)of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The decision does not have to deal with the rights of the Respondent as the Complaint must already be rejected for the missing rights of the Complainant (see above) and the fact that there is no evidence for bad faith (see below).  \r\n",
    "bad_faith": "Complainant has failed to prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith. ",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Rejected",
    "panelists": [
        "Thomas Hoeren"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2010-06-28 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has registered a German trademark at the German Patent Ofiice (DPMA) for the figurative trademark \"aidu.de. Ab in den Urlaub\" (No. 305 13208 registered at the 28 April 2005). The Complainant claims to have unregistered trademarks in the terms \"Ab in den Urlaub\". ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "AB-IN-DEN-URLAUB.COM": "REJECTED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}